Research needed on what that code consists of (i.e. what bit of it he breaches if he lies on behalf of a client) and what the complaints process is.

Complaints procedures tend to be orientated towards those of a client against a solicitor or other legal services body who is/was providing them with legal services. Although, at first glance, the Legal Ombudsman doesn't appear to rule out complaints from anyone. However it is more to do with the actual service provided rather than a random person going: "zoomg I saw a solicitor do lies!!!111!! Ban him nao!!!!"
Then there is the self-regulatory bodies.
e.g Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Our Principles and Code of Conduct are part of our Handbook and define the basic ethical and professional standards that we expect all firms and individuals regulated by us to comply with, whether they are lawyers, non-lawyers, managers or employees. These are backed up by sets of rules.The Principles

The Principles are at the core of everything that we do, and everything those we regulate do. If there is a clash between two or more Principles, the course of action taken will be according to the Principle that best serves the public interest.
The Principles say that

"You must:

uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice,

act with integrity,

not allow your independence to be compromised,

act in the best interests of each client,

provide a proper standard of service to your clients,

behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services,

comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner,

run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles,

run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity, and

protect client money and assets."

It then goes on about codes of practice which are more client complaint based.

They do have enforcement powers, as follows:

Enforcement action

Where there is a failure to cooperate or there are significant risks to consumers or the public we take tough enforcement action. Those we regulate have a duty to co-operate openly and promptly with us (see Principle 7, above). If they fail to do so we can require them to deliver documents or information to us or to provide us with an explanation in person. In some circumstances, we can also apply to the High Court to seek documents or information from a third party.
In making decisions about how we take formal enforcement action, the kind of factors we take into account include

the number of clients affected and any impact on them

any impact on public confidence

patterns of behaviour

whether the conduct continued for an unreasonable period taking account of its seriousness

the potential to affect on a vulnerable person or child

any potential to affect a substantial, high-value or high-profile matter

Once we have taken into account the factors above, we apply criteriaspecific to the particular decision we are reaching. This helps us to ensure that we are complying with our legal powers and duties. Before we decide to take enforcement action we must ensure the legislation allows us to do so in the particular circumstances.
Our legal powers mean we can, where appropriate

Read more about the different types of enforcement actionwe can take.
We may publish our regulatory decisions, though there are cases where we do not if it is not in the public interest for us to do

Good luck with that, but I think you'll be beating your head against a brick wall more than dealing with the persistent ignorance at Sunderland Council.

Personally I think you'd be better off calling out that moron at Sunderland council, as well as going above his head, to show again that the information on the form is lies and obfuscation.

Chiefly:

a) COSRECI is not only NOT a South Australian charity it is not even registered with their regulatory bodies. Claims of being set up for charitable purposes in its incorporation docs is NOT good enough, especially when it is nothing but a corporate trust in name and with no function other than to be used in the UK to create and apparency that it does charitable works of the kind that the Charities Commission of England and Wales ruled that it doesn't actually do.
Sunderland council have done no research into this, they have taken scientology's lies as fact and refused to act on evidence given.

b) Donations/Prices/Free services. Sunderland council have done absolutely no verification to determine whether scientology's services are mostly free or mostly come at a price. Suggest Giving Sunderland council a copy of scientology's "Bridge to total freedom" chart, as well as listing all the services on it in plan text, and asking Sunderland council the rhetorical question: which of those scientology services are free. Not "minimum donation", "exchange for time" or any other wishy washy version of "free-ish" but actually free, as in walking into the Sunderland org and getting something for free.
Of course Sunderland council will not be able to tell you becase they didn't ask scientology to verifiy. They just believed them.

The kind of 'harm' they investigate is the 'harm to individuals' kind, rather than the 'misuse of taxpayers money' kind.

I get what you're saying. You have to gear it towards a complaint about the procedure of the council's handling of your complaint. I'm not under the illusion that it is a final solution but it is one avenue whilst badgering on at the chief fuckwit at the council. You can bet your life that the council would be quick to react to information about an individual who was cheating them out of five quids worth of council tax benefits yet here they are actively not investigating reports of fraud over someones application for the business version of council tax (backdated and worth thousands). Councils have a benefits fraud investigatory team yet for business rates relief (which is another form of benefit) it seems to be down to one person. I can't quite decide whether their actions (or lack of action) is because they have too many discretionary powers or not enough.
Based on what I said above, if you ask rhetorical questions of the council about scientology's "mostly free" services and they don't know then they haven't done their homework, especially if you can then provide them with a resonably good list of what is and what is not free (and under what curcumstances some things *might* be "free").

I suspect it's because they don't pay the bill for Mandatory Relief - that's made up from national taxpayers' funds.

So if they grant the relief then they pay nothing, if they deny it they risk getting sued by the clams.

AFAIK, Sunderland has not revealed any legal worries in FOI dox. There is obviously an underlying question "what if" if they've been seeking advice from other councils but it doesn't explain why they might conclude, real or tacit, to have the same worries as London but completely ignore the total lack of cult legal action in those areas where relief was applied for and rejected (St.Hill Manor for one very large example). These are huge gaps in logic.

AFAIK, Sunderland has not revealed any legal worries in FOI dox. There is obviously an underlying question "what if" if they've been seeking advice from other councils but it doesn't explain why they might conclude, real or tacit, to have the same worries as London but completely ignore the total lack of cult legal action in those areas where relief was applied for and rejected (St.Hill Manor for one very large example). These are huge gaps in logic.

It's a local authority. What do you expect? If they didn't do something stupid like that then they would be spending millions on messing up one way systems and putting in new roundabouts.

a) COSRECI is not only NOT a South Australian charity it is not even registered with their regulatory bodies. Claims of being set up for charitable purposes in its incorporation docs is NOT good enough, especially when it is nothing but a corporate trust in name and with no function other than to be used in the UK to create and apparency that it does charitable works of the kind that the Charities Commission of England and Wales ruled that it doesn't actually do.
Sunderland council have done no research into this, they have taken scientology's lies as fact and refused to act on evidence given.

b) Donations/Prices/Free services. Sunderland council have done absolutely no verification to determine whether scientology's services are mostly free or mostly come at a price. <snip>

I suppose somebody could write into Sunderland council and point out that COSRECI is not a charity anywhere except in name and ask them how they ensure on an ongoing basis that the tax relief given them benefits the public in a proportionate way.

I work for a Charity (a proper one!) in Sunderland that after fourteen years of trying to get the discretionary relief by using the COS arguments from the whatdotheyknow site has finally convinced Sunderland to give us the relief, they have however only allowed it for last year and this - so at least some good has come out of all your hard work and campaining!

Within the information on the whatdotheyknow site is an email from Hodkin (page 206) asking for the repayment of all sums paid "without time limit" and refering to the City of Westminster doing just this - does anyone know how the City of Sunderland responded? Did they "only" get £12,599 back or did they get back everything they had ever paid?